Hello all,

I have included more required information for your discussions in Forum 1 which will continue this week until the final deadline next Saturday at 9pm.

First, read the pdf handout "Vietnam The Real Story on PBS - The New York Times" so you can become a bit more familiar with the 1985 controversy about the videos you are required to watch for this class, both the PBS series AND the AIM program.  Be sure that your posts and replies reflect a clear understanding of the points made in the article.  Second, watch the second half of the AIM program.

In the PBS series, the only individuals we hear from besides the narrator were people taking part in various aspects of the war.  As viewers, we *assume* that experts and historians were working behind the scenes, fact checking every bit of information presented in that PBS program.  In the AIM program, we hear *directly* from experts and historians themselves, yet it is somehow easier for some/many viewers to discredit the accuracy of the issues raised in that program.  In fact, over the past years teaching this course, I've found that most students "prefer" the stories in the Appy book over the "history" presented by George Herring, renowned scholar and historian, in his book.  

To some degree, some students would rather read, watch, and listen to eyewitnesses, interviewees and their stories (no matter how very limited a view they present as to what the Vietnam War was all about), rather than examine what the experts have to say about the enormous, very complex, and lengthy conflict.

This is the direction you will take as you continue this, the final week of discussions in Forum 1.

Good luck.


After reading the NYT article and watching the second half of the AIM program, discuss specific examples of conflicting information you have encountered in the provided class sources (from the Herring book, PBS series, and AIM program).  More importantly, which source gets your "vote", on that specific issue, as having the more correct/accurate/truthful interpretation or reinterpretation?